Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. MER-C 12:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre


WP:POLEMIC. Not really much more to say here. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What could possibly be wrong with maintaining documentation of damaging edits to a very important article? As I recall, this was put together as evidence in an effort via ANI or some other forum to have some action taken to restrain WeldNeck's extremely disruptive behavior. This may have been the point at which one admin threw up his hands and said, "I'm in over my head." It's a difficult subject and WeldNeck is a very difficult user. Are you an admin who's up to dealing with hard cases? If so, how about looking at this horrible WeldNeck record, and at a more recent one, for which there's now a link at my comment in the ANI section where he's trying to have me banned? Charles J. Hanley 23:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)


 * I'm not an admin.
 * I don't care about however important you think this article is, you have an obvious conflict of interest where it is concerned.
 * The correct location to present evidence against 's conduct is at a noticeboard, such as at WP:ANI. The correct location is never to leave it up on your user space where it can be advertised at User:Cjhanley indefinitely. This is already explained at WP:POLEMIC which I already linked above. "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."  You have not used it in a timely manner. It's been there since Nov. 2013, left up indefinitely.  As far as I can tell, you've never used it nor shown any intention of using it outside of pointing to it on your user page. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  23:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you truly an undergraduate math major, as your user page says? Are you truly not a WP admin? What is going on? Who are you? I am trying to make Wikipedia as truthful as possible about a war crime from half a century ago, and you think you have some standing and right to stop that? No wonder the world thinks what it does of WP. (Meantime, please answer my questions: Who are you? Who I am is clear to everyone. I know, you can simply say (ludicrously), who I am is unimportant. Or you can be real. Up to you.) Charles J. Hanley 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be undergraduate Computer science major, not maths. It seems you are new to Wikipedia, so I will Assume good faith. Though you allege yourself an expert on a subject, it does not give you higher privileges in that article nor elsewhere. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, and edits must be supported by reliable sources. Your expertise is a valuable help in making the article and giving different aspects of it due weight, but when you start being uncivil, harass and demean other editors, or claim ownership of articles, it becomes more disruptive than helpful.  Expert_editors goes more in-depth on these and other policies and how they relate to subject matter experts, so I recommend you take a quick read-through on that.
 * I haven't looked thoroughly into your long-term dispute with, but it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this MfD discussion. What matters is this is an attack page meant to shame another editor for long-past actions and has been left unused for a year and a half. Such pages should only exist for a short period and only in cases where you are attempting to gather and organize facts before presenting it to WP:ANI or a similar dispute resolution location, and should be removed shortly after. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per per WP:POLEMIC, " The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner". User:Cjhanley attempted to post this to Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre, but it was deleted (inappropriately, in my opinion, see ). User:Cjhanley is attempting to resolve this dispute, and should be assisted by the community, letting the chips fall where they may. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It has not been used in a timely manner. It has been left up, untouched, for a year and a half. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify: The page in question here was, indeed, created in November 2013 and WAS used in a timely manner, in a futile effort to get some admin attention paid to the dreadful things going on at No Gun Ri Massacre. It was then forgotten. (I would delete it myself, but the warning atop the page says I can't or, I suppose, I'd be brought up on some arcane WP charges.) On the other hand, the "compilation of factual evidence (diffs)" that refers to is an entirely new bill of particulars, with all new outrages committed by WeldNeck, that was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre yesterday (May 25) and deleted by WeldNeck within minutes., may I ask you, what appropriate punishment/action would you take against such seizing of ownership of a Talk page? Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 12:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)


 * Delete User subpages are not exempt from WP:NOTSOAPBOX, even if they try to right great wrongs.  Mini  apolis  00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POLEMIC, there's not a lot else to say. SPACKlick (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per POLEMICs above. Agree with above - Encourage User:Cjhanley to take this to ANI before it's deleted. Widefox ; talk 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's evidence in the form of diffs, but it hasn't been used in a timely manner.   If this is needed for some purpose, such as a complaint at a noticeboard, an admin can restore it by user request (or you could simply paste it into a text file on your personal computer right now before it's deleted). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per POLEMIC. The material here is not a collection of bare diffs being compiled for a report. It is instead a very divisive rant. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per POLEMIC, no question at all. The user has, so far, not been able to distinguish between the role of an investigative journalist amd that of an editor of a neutral encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.